ILNews

Senate passes new COA panel bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate has given its OK to add three judges to the state's second highest appellate court.

By a 47-2 vote just before 7 p.m. Monday, senators passed Senate Bill 35 that would create a sixth Indiana Court of Appeals panel and increase the number of judges from 15 to 18 starting in January 2010. Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, and Sen. James Lewis, D-Charlestown, voted against the legislation, though no one spoke against the bill on the floor.

Bill author Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville - chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously authorized this bill and also the leader of the Commission on Courts that's repeatedly recommended the panel's creation in past years - reminded his colleagues that this new panel of judges has been recommended for at least five years, and that it's inevitable and becomes more pressing each year.

"Each year we need it a little worse," he said, referring to a growing appellate caseload nearing 3,000 a year.

During a Senate Judiciary meeting in January, Chief Judge John Baker said the court achieved a clearance rate of 100 percent last year and maintains an average turnaround time for decisions of about 1 ½ months - two points that allows Indiana's intermediate appellate court to be able to say it's the most efficient court of its kind nationally.

While the court is doing well to keep up and the chief judge hasn't made any official request for more judges, both he and Bray said the need will eventually become critical as the ever-growing caseload continues but the judicial resources remain the same. If the General Assembly doesn't add more judges, Bray said the court will be left with options of writing fewer opinions, spending less time on cases, or decreasing the quality of its judicial work - none of those are legally desirable, he said.

"This may be subject to budget constraints and may not happen this year," he said. "But once again, we keep postponing the inevitable. If the fiscal people could find anyway to get this in, I think it would benefit our state, our legal system, and everyone."

A hurdle may arise for the legislation now that it moves to the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives: The bill's fiscal impact statement estimates spending $1.3 million the first year and $2.2 million thereafter, which could cause more legislative apprehension.

If the General Assembly passes the legislation and the governor signs it into law, the Judicial Nominating Commission would begin the selection process later this year, according to the proposal.

Reps. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, and Kathy Richardson, R-Noblesville, have agreed to sponsor the appellate judge panel legislation in the House.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT